Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Document

December 2006
 1 

Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project Scoping Document 

A. INTRODUCTION 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK) and the New Jersey Transit 

Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) are proposing to enhance the capacity and improve the operation of 

the Portal Bridge, a rail crossing over the Hackensack River. The existing Portal Bridge is a twotrack, moveable swing-span rail bridge completed in 1910 between the City of Kearny and the 

City of Secaucus in Hudson County, New Jersey. The Portal Bridge is located at Milepost 6.1 

along the heavily used “High Line” portion of AMTRAK’s Northeast Corridor, which connects 

Newark, NJ and New York, NY. The aging Portal Bridge is a bottleneck along the Northeast 

Corridor that conflicts with marine traffic and impedes efficient and reliable passenger rail 

service. The Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project will examine alternatives including 

replacement, rehabilitation, or modification of the existing structure to improve existing 

operations and ensure passenger safety.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider 

the environmental effects of their proposed actions. As such, an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project. The 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which oversees AMTRAK’s capital programs, will 

serve as the lead federal agency for the environmental review. The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) is a cooperating agency for the environmental review. FTA will 

contribute information for which it has special expertise and ensure the EIS is prepared in 

compliance with its environmental regulations. Other cooperating agencies may be identified 

during the EIS process. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the following: NEPA (as 

amended) and the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) implementing regulations for 

NEPA; Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Act of 1966; FRA Environmental Procedures (64 F.R. 

§ 28545); and FTA NEPA regulations (23 C.F.R. Part 771); and other applicable federal, and 

state laws and regulations.

The first steps in the preparation of an EIS are the issuance of a Notice of Intent and initiation of 

the public scoping process. A Notice of Intent was issued in the Federal Register on December 

12, 2006. The public scoping process begins with publication of this Scoping Document. The 

purpose of this Scoping Document is to provide the public and agencies with an initial 

opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS (DEIS) process including the project’s purpose and 

need, alternatives considered, and the methodologies to be used in the analyses. This Scoping 

Document presents a description of the project’s purpose and need (Section B), alternatives to be 

considered (Section C), the project goals and objectives (Section D), the methodology to be used 

for the environmental analyses (Section E), and a description of the plan for public and agency 

involvement (Section F). Section F also provides information regarding the public hearing that 

will be held to solicit comments on this Scoping Document.
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 2 

B. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

BACKGROUND 

The Northeast Corridor is the most heavily used passenger rail line in the U.S., both in terms of 

ridership and service frequency1

. The Northeast Corridor extends from Washington, D.C. in the 

south to Boston, MA in the north, serving the densely populated northeast region, including 

Pennsylvania Station in New York City (PSNY). AMTRAK, the nationwide intercity passenger 

rail operator, owns much of and operates over all of the Northeast Corridor. AMTRAK operates 

regional service, long distance service and high-speed Acela Express service along the line. 

Several commuter rail agencies provide local and semi-express passenger services along the 

Northeast Corridor. 

AMTRAK is the nation’s intercity passenger railroad providing service to over 500 destinations 

in 46 states on 21,000 miles of routes. AMTRAK owns and operates the Northeast Corridor 

from PSNY in New York City to Washington D.C., including the heavily used “High Line” 

portion connecting Newark, NJ and New York, NY with the Portal Bridge at Milepost 6.1. An 

average of over 69,000 passengers travel on up to 300 AMTRAK trains per day across the 

nation. AMTRAK carries approximately 23,700 intercity passengers per day between New York 

and Washington, D.C.. 

NJ TRANSIT, New Jersey’s public transportation corporation, provides bus, rail, and light rail 

transit throughout the state. NJ TRANSIT is the nation’s largest statewide public transportation 

system, providing bus, rail, and light rail services that connect major points in New Jersey, New 

York, and Pennsylvania. Over 800,000 daily trips are provided on NJ TRANSIT’s 238 bus 

routes, 11 commuter rail lines, and 3 light rail lines. NJ TRANSIT’s Northeast Corridor Line 

operates over AMTRAK’s Northeast Corridor in portions of Pennsylvania and in New Jersey 

from Trenton to PSNY. Several of NJ TRANSIT’s other commuter rail lines join AMTRAK’s 

Northeast Corridor west of the Hackensack River and subsequently travel under the Hudson 

River to their terminus at PSNY (see Figure 1). 

AMTRAK’s Northeast Corridor and NJ TRANSIT’s commuter rail system helps drive the 

region’s economic growth by connecting the regions of Washington, D.C., Baltimore, 

Wilmington, Philadelphia, and New Jersey with New York City. This includes the growing 

west-of-Hudson residential communities throughout New Jersey, Orange and Rockland Counties 

in New York, and portions of Pennsylvania. AMTRAK carries approximately 15,700 

passengers each day over Portal Bridge, including 3,900 passengers per day on the timesensitive premium Acela Express service. Approximately 270,000 people commute into 

Manhattan from points west of the Hudson River in areas served by NJ TRANSIT’s commuter 

trains, and an estimated 21 percent of these commuters use rail as the primary means of entering 

New York City2

. Between the years 1980 and 2000, suburban commuting into Manhattan grew 

by 86,000 people, a 19 percent increase. The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority 

 

1 Source: “A Recommended Approach to Funding the Estimated Capital Investment Needs of the Northeast Corridor 

Rail Infrastructure,” BGL Rail Associates, prepared for Amtrak Reform Council, April 2002.

2 Source: Census 2000 commuting data found at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/commuting.html 

and Total Manhattan data from “Journey-to-Work in the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) 

Area and the Surrounding Tri-State Metropolitan Region,” NYMTC, October 1999
9.26.06

NJ Transit Rail System

Figure 1 PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

N J T R A N S I T

NOT TO SCALE

N

Portal Bridge

Portal Bridge
 Scoping Document 

 3 

(NJTPA) projects the population of northern New Jersey will grow more than 16 percent by 

2025, to 7.6 million people. Most of this growth is expected in the southern- and western-most 

counties, including Ocean, Sussex, and Warren Counties. The commuter rail system will need to 

meet increased demands from this population growth. 

Currently, many of NJ TRANSIT’s rail commuters and all AMTRAK Northeast Corridor 

passengers en route to or from Manhattan and points south travel over the Portal Bridge. Four of 

NJ TRANSIT’s rail lines—the Northeast Corridor Line, the North Jersey Coast Line, certain 

Montclair-Boonton Line trains, and certain Morris & Essex Line (which includes the Gladstone 

Branch and Morristown Line) trains—utilize the Portal Bridge. AMTRAK currently operates 

approximately 51 weekday scheduled trains in each direction over this segment of the Northeast 

Corridor (on average, one train every 30 minutes). AMTRAK’s Northeast Corridor operations, 

which connect Washington, New York City, and Boston, are considered among the most 

financially viable of all its routes around the country, and service along this corridor has 

consistently been regarded as essential by each state through which it operates and by Congress. 

Table 1 shows the number of passengers and number of trains using the Portal Bridge in the AM 

peak hour. Due to capacity constraints and higher demand, the ratio of passengers to trains is 

greater for those trains operating over the Portal Bridge than for those trains not operating over 

the Portal Bridge. As shown in Table 1, 20 NJ TRANSIT trains operating over the Portal Bridge 

serve 17,700 passengers, while 13,600 passengers are served by 29 trains that do not operate 

over the bridge. 

Over the past few decades, improvements to the Northeast Corridor’s infrastructure have greatly 

enhanced rail operations for Amtrak and NJ . As discussed in “Problem Identification” below, 

the Portal Bridge is an essential yet weak link along the Northeast Corridor. Planned projects 

intended to meet future transportation demands (discussed in Section C, “Planning Context”) 

will place additional importance on a reliable and efficient Hackensack River crossing. 

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 

The Portal Bridge was constructed by the Pennsylvania Railroad and began operations in 1910. 

It made possible direct train service between western and southern points on the Pennsylvania 

Railroad and New York. The current Portal Bridge was constructed as part of a larger project 

that also included the following elements: New York’s original Pennsylvania Station; twin 

tunnels from Tonnelle Avenue in New Jersey to 9th Avenue in Manhattan; the portion of the 

Northeast Corridor from Tonnelle Avenue to the former Manhattan Transfer station in Harrison, 

NJ; and traction power and signal systems along this segment. The Portal Bridge is a two-track, 

moveable swing-span bridge that crosses the Hackensack River in New Jersey between the City 

of Kearny and the City of Secaucus. It is a critical infrastructure element for AMTRAK and NJ 

TRANSIT, enabling movement between east-of-Hudson and west-of-Hudson destinations. The 

existing Portal Bridge, however, poses reliability concerns, capacity constraints, and operational 

inflexibility. The problems associated with the existing Portal Bridge are discussed below. 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 4 

AGING AND LIMITING INFRASTRUCTURE 

The Portal Bridge was constructed nearly a century ago. Design standards for steel railroad 

bridges anticipate a typical lifespan of 100 years. Given the Portal Bridge’s age, the structure is 

nearing the end of its economic life. Passenger safety is a top priority for both AMTRAK and NJ 

TRANSIT. One of AMTRAK’s stated goals in its Strategic Reform Initiatives and FY06 Grant 

Requests (April 2005) is the return of the Northeast Corridor infrastructure to a “state of good 

repair and operational reliability.” NJ TRANSIT also strives to maintain the infrastructure in a 

“state of good repair,” which is achieved when infrastructure components are replaced on a 

schedule consistent with their life expectancy. The existing Portal Bridge presents a considerable 

ongoing operation and maintenance expense for AMTRAK because the mechanical and 

structural components are prone to failure due to age and wear and because swing bridges, as 

discussed below, are the most complicated moveable rail bridge type.

Table 1 

Existing NJ TRANSIT AM Peak Hour (7:30-8:30 A.M.) Ridership 

NJ TRANSIT 

Rail Line 

Service Operating over the 

Portal Bridge (1) Service Not Operating Over the 

Portal Bridge (2)

 Passengers Trains Passengers Trains 

Northeast 

Corridor and 

North Jersey 

Coast Line 

10,296 12 4,518 2 

Main/Bergen 

Line NA NA 3,693 13 

Morris & Essex 

Line 4,896 6 1,512 4 

MontclairBoonton Line 1,118 2 819 4 

Pascack Valley 

Line NA NA 1,270 4 

Raritan Valley 

Line 1,320 (3) NA 1,789 (3) 5 

Total 17,700 20 13,601 29 

Total Trains 

(including 

AMTRAK 

trains) 

- 23 - 29 

Notes: (1) Includes NJ TRANSIT’s Northeast Corridor Line, AMTRAK’s Northeast Corridor trains, 

and portions of NJ TRANSIT’s North Jersey Coast Line, Montclair-Boonton Line, and Morris 

& Essex Line. 

 (2) Includes portions of NJ TRANSIT’s North Jersey Coast Line, Montclair-Boonton Line, and 

Morris & Essex Line. Includes all Main/Bergen Line, Raritan Valley Line, and Pascack 

Valley Line trains. 

 (3) Total ridership on the Raritan Valley Line, which terminates in Newark, is 3,109. 1,320 of 

these riders transfer to Northeast Corridor and North Jersey Coast Line trains in Newark. 

Sources: NJ TRANSIT, January 2006
 Scoping Document 

 5 

In addition to the age of the Portal Bridge, several aspects of the bridge’s design are problematic. 

The bridge consists of seven spans and totals 961 feet in length. The middle span is a 300 foot 

long moveable swing span and is able to pivot to an open position (perpendicular to the rail line) 

to allow marine traffic to pass through the bridge. When the swing span is open, the bridge is 

closed to rail traffic. Special rail connections, known as “miter rails,” allow the rails to 

disengage and the bridge to open and close. These connections are mechanically separated and 

automatically controlled for the swing span to open and then are realigned after it is closed. 

Mechanical wedges must lock the structure in the closed position and with electric traction 

special mechanical catenery connections must join the continuous contact wire on either end of 

the bridge. Depending on the reliability of this process, the period of time the bridge is closed to 

train traffic may be adversely affected resulting in train delays. Due to these issues, older swing 

span bridges are now being replaced by other types of moveable bridges such as vertical lift and 

single-span bascule bridges. The miter rail connections have been an ongoing problem since the 

Portal Bridge was constructed, and the connections have been replaced several times. They are 

vulnerable to maladjustment and negatively affected by temperature changes. The rate of wear 

on these miter rail connections is worsened with higher train speeds and frequencies. As a result, 

while trains can operate at 90 miles per hour (mph) on adjacent portions of the Northeast 

Corridor, speeds on the Portal Bridge have previously been restricted to 70 mph, and most 

recently (December 2006) have been permanently restricted to 60 mph. 

As discussed in more detail below, the Hackensack River is a navigable waterway and marine 

traffic requires frequent bridge openings. These openings increase the likelihood of mechanical 

malfunctions, which have in the past caused the bridge to remain in the open position for long 

periods of time. Between 2001 and 2005, instances where train traffic was delayed due to the 

opening of the Portal Bridge for marine traffic increased from 28 to 52. The average length of 

delay over these five years stayed relatively constant (around 15 minutes per opening). Instances 

where train traffic was delayed due to mechanical malfunction of the bridge increased 

substantially from 15 to 38 openings per year between 2001 and 2005. Additionally, the average 

length of delay due to these malfunctions have steadily increased going from 78 minutes in 2001 

to 131 minutes in 2005. 

CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS AND OPERATIONAL INFLEXIBILITY 

The two-track configuration of the Portal Bridge and the speed restrictions discussed above limit 

the number of trains that can cross the Hackensack River, which is especially problematic during 

peak hours. Recent system enhancements, such as the implementation of NJ TRANSIT’s 

Midtown Direct service (which allows a limited number of Morris & Essex Line trains and 

Montclair-Boonton Line trains to merge onto the Northeast Corridor west of Portal Bridge for 

direct access to midtown Manhattan) have increased the total number of daily trains traveling 

over this already congested section of rail line. 

The Northeast Corridor has two tracks between Swift Interlocking (the point where Midtown 

Direct trains merge onto the Northeast Corridor) and Secaucus Junction Train Station (the point 

where six NJ TRANSIT lines intersect). Typically, one track operates eastbound and one track 

operates westbound. This current configuration creates two bottlenecks. Eastbound trains must 

merge from two tracks to one track at Swift Interlocking, and westbound trains must merge from 

two tracks to one track leaving Secaucus Junction. Because multiple rail lines and different train 

types operated by NJ TRANSIT and AMTRAK are merging onto a two-track bridge, the 

window of opportunity for each train is reduced. This operational inflexibility means that a delay 

on one rail line can cascade to other rail lines. For example, if a Northeast Corridor Line train is 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 6 

delayed, a Midtown Direct train on the Montclair-Boonton Line may be forced to miss its 

appointed time to pass through Swift Interlocking and over the Portal Bridge. Similarly, if an 

eastbound North Jersey Coast Line train is stalled on the Portal Bridge, other eastbound trains on 

the Morris & Essex, Montclair-Boonton, and Northeast Corridor Lines may be delayed. 

Likewise, delays to a NJ TRANSIT train may delay AMTRAK trains and vice versa. 

A recent analysis (January 2006) of train delays between Swift Interlocking and Secaucus 

Junction was conducted over a two-week period. The analysis revealed that on seven out of ten 

weekdays, at least one peak period train was delayed due to the merge at Swift Interlocking. On 

average, an additional four to five trains were subsequently delayed due to the initial 

interruption. Frequent bridge openings exacerbate the current operational inflexibility. Bridge 

openings must be scheduled during certain time periods, during which trains cannot operate over 

the Portal Bridge. Since several rail lines use the bridge, mechanical malfunctions during bridge 

closing cause a ripple effect throughout the corridor.

MAINTENANCE DIFFICULTIES 

The complexity of the swing bridge with the miter rail configuration and the level of train traffic 

require vigilant maintenance and inspection of the Portal Bridge, especially the connections 

between the bridge and adjacent track. The current level of train traffic over the bridge leaves 

few windows of opportunity for maintenance and inspection activities to be performed. Sections 

of track must be taken offline to perform these tasks. To avoid disruption to passenger service, 

AMTRAK is forced to conduct maintenance and inspection during increasingly limited time 

periods, such as at night and on weekends. As traffic along the Northeast Corridor increases, 

fewer suitable time periods for maintenance and inspection will be available. 

CONFLICTS WITH MARITIME USES 

The Hackensack River is a navigable waterway governed by the U.S. Coast Guard. The existing 

Portal Bridge has only 23 feet of clearance between mean high water (MHW) and the lowest 

steel elevation of the bridge. As a result, marine traffic along this segment of the Hackensack 

River requires the frequent opening of the Portal Bridge and disruption of Northeast Corridor 

train traffic. This conflict is currently managed by restricting the times during which the bridge 

is permitted to open. Under current federal regulations, the bridge need not be opened Monday 

through Friday, except federal holidays, from 6:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. and from 4:00 P.M. to 

8:00 P.M. However, additional bridge openings shall be provided for commercial vessels from 

6:00 a.m. to 7:20 A.M.; 9:20 A.M. to 10:00 A.M; 4:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. and from 6:50 P.M. to 

8:00 P.M.; if at least one-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the 

bridge. Nonetheless, the lengthy time that is required to open and close the Portal Bridge for 

marine traffic continues to be disruptive to efficient rail operations. Over the past two years, the 

bridge has opened for marine traffic an average of approximately 28 times per month. 

PLANNING CONTEXT 

Numerous improvements have been made to the Northeast Corridor in recent years, and many 

more large- and small-scale improvements are planned. As described above, NJ TRANSIT’s 

Midtown Direct service (implemented in 1996 and expanded in 2002) allows passengers on the 

Morris & Essex Line and the Montclair-Boonton Line the option of direct service to midtown 

Manhattan in addition to previously existing service to Hoboken. The recently completed 

Secaucus Junction serves as a transfer station for NJ TRANSIT commuter rail passengers. 
 Scoping Document 

 7 

Passengers on Hoboken-bound trains can switch for service to New York’s Pennsylvania 

Station, and vice versa. Other recent improvements include: the train station at Newark 

International Airport; extension of electrified territory; upgraded signal system for increased 

train frequency; additional substations for improved traction power system; additional 

concourses at New York’s Pennsylvania Station. 

Amtrak funded major capital projects in the vicinity of the study area include the reconstruction 

of the North (Hudson) River tunnel Weehawken shaft to improve normal and emergency 

ventilation and emergency egress; and installation of standpipes and improved lighting in the 

North River tunnels. 

Several large transportation projects are currently in the planning phase. NJ TRANSIT is 

currently preparing a Draft EIS for the Monmouth-Ocean-Middlesex Project, which will 

evaluate commuter rail alternatives for areas within those three central New Jersey counties. NJ 

TRANSIT is preparing a Draft EIS and has entered preliminary engineering for the Access to the 

Region’s Core Project (ARC), which includes an evaluation of a new two-track tunnel under the 

Hudson River and a new rail terminal in Manhattan under 34th Street and adjacent to the 

existing Penn Station. ARC will also include a connection to rail lines serving residents of 

Rockland, Orange, Bergen, and Passaic Counties. The ARC project is particularly relevant to the 

Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project, as Portal Bridge is within the ARC project’s study 

area, and many of the potential environmental effects from operation of a new and expanded 

Portal Bridge have been addressed in the ARC EIS analyses. Perhaps most importantly, the ARC 

service plan proposes increasing the number of trains crossing the Hackensack River on the 

Northeast Corridor from 23 in the AM peak hour to 37. Both of these future NJ TRANSIT 

projects, as well as other improvements and system upgrades planned by AMTRAK and NJ 

TRANSIT, will be considered in the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project EIS. 

C. ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED 

AMTRAK and NJ TRANSIT are proposing the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project to 

address problems posed by the existing river crossing. The project will include examination of 

alternatives including replacement, rehabilitation, or modification of the existing Portal Bridge. 

To address the bottleneck between Swift Interlocking and Secaucus Junction, several of the 

project alternatives will include construction of additional track(s) between these two points. 

Other alternatives may include additional track(s) only along the eastbound and westbound 

bridge approaches. The project’s geographic limits are expected to be bound by Dock 

Interlocking to the west and Secaucus Junction to the east. The northern and southern project 

limits will be refined as the project alternatives are developed; however, they may extend 

beyond the existing rail right-of-way. For purposes of the EIS, the project build year will be 

approximately 2012 to 2013. The year of analysis will be 2025. 

Consistent with NEPA requirements, the project alternatives to be evaluated will include a No 

Action Alternative, wherein the existing structure would remain in place and only regular 

maintenance would occur, and several build alternatives. 

NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

The No Action Alternative consists of the transportation facilities most likely to be in place by 

the design year of 2025. The No Action Alternative assumes that the existing Portal Bridge will 

remain in place and will be subject only to regular maintenance, and serves as a baseline for 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 8 

comparison to the build alternatives. The No Action Alternative also takes into account planned 

improvements that have recently been completed or are programmed for completion in the near 

future, as well as planned improvements that are included in the long-range regional 

transportation plan. Small-scale projects may include “state-of-good-repair” maintenance as well 

as improvements to switches, signals, tracks and platforms. These additions achieve some 

incremental capacity for the rail system, reduce dwell times, and add to system redundancy. 

Major investment projects involve substantial improvements to the transportation system in the 

region. A complete list of applicable projects to be included in the No Action Alternative will be 

included in the EIS, however, provided below are descriptions of planned projects known to be 

relevant to the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project. 

Major Planned Projects 

Access to the Region’s Core (ARC)

This major investment being undertaken by NJ TRANSIT involves the construction of a new 

passenger station underneath 34th Street (in New York) along with an additional two-track 

tunnel underneath the Hudson River that will connect with the existing Northeast Corridor east 

of Secaucus Station. ARC will also include construction of a loop track at Secaucus Station, 

which will allow trains from the Main, Bergen, and Pascack Valley Lines to travel directly into 

New York’s Pennsylvania Station via the Northeast Corridor. Ancillary elements of ARC will 

include the construction of a new yard for equipment storage and associated connections west of 

the Hackensack River in Kearny, NJ, and the purchase of dual-mode electric/diesel equipment to 

be used on the presently non-electrified Raritan Valley Line to allow “one-seat rides” to PSNY. 

Newark Pennsylvania Station Improvements

NJ TRANSIT will improve the condition, appearance and function of Platform E (Track 5), 

which is primarily used by Raritan Valley Line service at Newark’s Pennsylvania Station (NPS). 

This will include repair and restoration of the platform, drainage systems, canopy roof, waiting 

areas, walls/windows/doors, signage, and lighting. In addition, NJ TRANSIT is also improving 

passenger connections between the NEC and Broad Street. A new professional hockey arena 

and mixed-use development are currently under construction in the area between these two 

points. The project includes the construction of stairways and elevators at one or more station 

platforms at the western end of NPS to a pathway along the abandoned Central Railroad of New 

Jersey (CNJ) bridge over the NEC. 

Farley Post Office/Moynihan Station Development Project 

The Farley Post Office/Moynihan Station Redevelopment Project, proposed by the Empire State 

Development Corporation (ESDC), would involve the transformation of the current Farley Post 

Office into an intermodal transportation facility supported by new commercial development. The 

Farley/Moynihan project would not add any rail capacity, but would create a major 

transportation hub, improve pedestrian circulation and capacity, and provide safety amenities at 

the PSNY complex. The projected construction period is between 2007 and 2010. 

New Yard Capacity in the Vicinity of New York’s Penn Station

This improvement would allow additional staging/storage of NJ TRANSIT trains adjacent to 

platform tracks at PSNY through the construction of additional yard capacity. This project, being 

undertaken by NJ TRANSIT will improve utilization at Platforms 1 through 4 and will be in 

service by 2011. 
 Scoping Document 

 9 

New York’s Pennsylvania Station York Capacity Enhancements

To address the crowded stairways and platforms at PSNY, NJ TRANSIT is proposing the 

construction of a pedestrian connection from Tracks 1 and 2 to an extended West End 

Concourse, the extension of the existing Central Corridor to West 31st Street, and the extension 

of Tracks 1 through 4 and lengthening of Platforms 1 and 2 to accommodate longer trains. This 

project, being undertaken by NJ TRANSIT will be completed by 2011. 

Introduction of Bi-Level Cars to NJ TRANSIT

NJ TRANSIT has recently entered into contract to purchase 234 bi-level coaches to expand 

capacity on its rail system. These cars have up to 15 to 20 percent more seating than the existing 

coaches used today and are expected to be delivered over the next three years. 

Minor Planned Projects 

Smaller-scale upgrades to NJ TRANSIT’s and AMTRAK’s existing infrastructure along various 

rail lines are summarized in Table 2. These planned improvements are included in NJ TRANSIT 

and AMTRAK’s Capital Improvement Plan, and will provide a modest amount of additional rail 

capacity in the future, and improve service reliability. These improvements include upgrades to 

switches between tracks, extensions and upgrades of existing platforms, improvements of signals 

along with the construction of additional tracks. 

Table 2

NJ TRANSIT Capital Improvement Program

Proposed Improvements 

Switches Platforms Signals Tracks 

Bergen County Line X NA X X 

Gladstone Branch X NA NA X 

Main Line X NA NA X 

Montclair-Boonton Line NA NA NA X 

Morristown Line X X X X 

Northeast Corridor Line X X X X 

North Jersey Coast Line X X X NA 

Pascack Valley Line NA NA NA NA 

Raritan Valley Line NA NA NA X 

Source: NJ TRANSIT’s 2025 Capital Improvement Plan 

In addition to these planned projects, the No Action Alternative will include assumptions about 

future operations of the region’s transportation network. Some of these operating assumptions 

are included in the rail simulations performed for the ARC EIS, the results of which are relevant 

to the analyses performed for this EIS. The operating assumptions will include items such as: 

future bus operations between New Jersey and New York; toll and fare increases; energy cost 

increases; limited additional NJ TRANSIT trains and bi-level cars; full operations of Secaucus 

Junction (which is not currently operating at maximum capacity); and future ferry services. 

The operating plan for the ARC project includes these assumptions as well as major planned 

transportation projects, including the replacement of Portal Bridge. The projected 2025 Build 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 10 

AM peak hour service associated with ARC includes 25 more trains traveling to PSNY, as 

compared to existing 2006 conditions. This will result in a total of 48 NJ TRANSIT trains 

traveling to PSNY in the AM peak hour and a net increase of 14 trains over the Portal Bridge, as 

shown in Figure 2. Because of this increase in direct service, the number of trains terminating at 

Newark Penn Station in the AM peak hour would be reduced from 6 to 2; the number of trains 

terminating at Hoboken in the AM peak hour would be reduced from 27 to 23. Therefore, with 

the implementation of ARC, the NJ TRANSIT commuter rail system would experience a net 

increase of 17 AM peak hour trains. 

The rail simulation and several of the environmental analyses developed for the ARC project 

will be used to estimate the effects of the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project. While 

enhancement of Portal Bridge capacity has been assumed for ARC, the proposed operating plan 

(i.e., 48 peak hour trains to PSNY) could be achieved without replacement of the Portal Bridge. 

This would be accomplished by re-routing some of the trains along a more circuitous route. As 

proposed in the ARC operating plan, 37 AM peak hour trains would use an enhanced Portal 

Bridge under the Locally Preferred Alternative. In the future, without any improvements, the 

Portal Bridge will not be able to accommodate this level of train activity. Therefore, the No 

Action Alternative for this EIS will assume some of the 37 trains are routed to alternate lines, 

enabling them to access the new Hudson River tunnels. 

The ARC project further proposes one new track adjacent to the existing Main/Bergen Line that 

would extend southward from Secaucus Junction to existing West End Interlocking (West End 

Wye) on the existing NJ TRANSIT Morristown Line, two miles west of Hoboken Terminal. 

Improvements proposed by the ARC project include an improved wye track connection to the 

existing Morristown Line. This new infrastructure will support an alternate route between 

Newark Penn Station and PSNY. This route could support a limited number of daily train 

movements in a No Action Alternative or serve as a temporary detour route as a key element of 

a build alternative. 

BUILD ALTERNATIVES 

The EIS will consider a number of different build alternatives to improve the existing Northeast 

Corridor rail crossing over the Hackensack River. These alternatives will consider both retention 

and removal of the existing Portal Bridge. Alternatives retaining the Portal Bridge will, in some 

cases, include the modification of certain characteristics of the existing bridge—such as height 

and operation (e.g., a moveable structure versus a fixed structure). For a new bridge, alternatives 

proposed will vary in bridge height, operation type (moveable/fixed), and number of tracks to be 

constructed between Swift Interlocking and Secaucus Junction. 

Alternatives Retaining the Existing Portal Bridge 

These alternatives would retain the existing Portal Bridge and include construction of a new two 

or three track bridge, either fixed or moveable. 

Alternatives Modifying the Existing Portal Bridge 

These alternatives would involve physically modifying the existing Portal Bridge (beyond 

normal maintenance), rehabilitating the structure, and raising it above its existing height. Some 

of these alternatives would raise the existing bridge to allow fixing it in the closed position. 

Other alternatives would raise the bridge to a lesser height and retain its moveable nature. These 

alternatives would also include a new bridge, either fixed or moveable, with two or three tracks. 
SECAUCUS

STATION

TO

NEW YORK CITY

PASSAIC RIVER

KEARNY AVE.

FORMER BOONTON LINE

I-280

I-280

NEWARK

PENN

STATION

SECAUCUS

STATION

PORTAL

BRIDGE

SWIFT INTERLOCKING

NORTHEAST

CORRIDOR

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

MORRIS & ESSEX LINES

ROUTE 1 & 9

PULASKI SKYWAY

NEWARK TPKE.

STATE ROUTE 7

BELLEVILLE TPKE.

RAYMOND

BLVD.

I-95 / NJ TURNPIKE

PASSAIC RIVER

HACKENSACK

RIVER

Jersey City

Secaucus

North Arlington Lyndhurst

Newark

Harrison

Kearny

East

Newark

TO

HOBOKEN

TO

NEW YORK CITY

I-95 / NJ TURNPIKE

I-95 / NJ TURNPIKE

MAIN/BERGEN AND

PASCACK VALLEY LINES

10

TRAINS

23

TRAINS

21

TRAINS 48

TRAINS

23

TRAINS

13

TRAINS

37

TRAINS

31

TRAINS

19

TRAINS

11

TRAINS

2025 AM Peak Hour Eastbound Train Volumes

Figure 2

12.13.06

N

SCALE

0 2000 4000 FEET

PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

N J T R A N S I T

Rail Line

Municipal Boundary

Train Station

Less than 10 Trains

10-20 Trains

21-30 Trains

31-40 Trains

Over 40 Trains

Train Volumes
 Scoping Document 

 11 

Alternatives Removing the Existing Portal Bridge 

These alternatives would involve the construction of two new bridges and removal of the 

existing Portal Bridge. These alternatives would include a mix of bridge height, operation type 

(moveable or fixed), and alignment along the Hackensack River. Some of these alternatives 

would include the construction of a new two- or three-track moveable bridge with a second new 

two-track fixed or moveable bridge. Other alternatives in this category would include a new twoor three-track fixed bridge and a second new two-track fixed bridge. 

D. PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

A project’s goals and objectives are the foundation of its purpose and need under NEPA. They 

are used as the basis for developing the criteria and screening methodology for evaluating the 

project alternatives. Six goals have been established for the Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement 

Project, relating to capacity, reliability, safety, compatibility, cost-effectiveness, and 

environmental considerations. Objectives will be developed for each goal during the scoping 

process to provide specific and measurable means by which to evaluate and compare project 

alternatives. The six project goals are as follows: 

GOAL 1: Enhance capacity to meet current and future demand—including new service—

along the Northeast Corridor. 

GOAL 2: Improve service reliability and operational flexibility. 

GOAL 3: Provide a redundant Hackensack River crossing to facilitate maintenance and 

enhance passenger safety and security. 

GOAL 4: Minimize conflicts with maritime traffic. 

GOAL 5: Optimize existing infrastructure and planned improvements. 

GOAL 6: Minimize impacts on the surrounding environment. 

E. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

The EIS will consider all potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the project 

alternatives upon the social, economic and environmental resources in the study area. Generally, 

while the project limits have been defined as Dock Interlocking (adjacent to Newark Penn 

Station) to the west and Secaucus Junction in the east, the study areas for each resource will vary 

with its area of potential effect. Resources such as contaminated materials and archaeology 

which can be directly affected by project construction will have study areas confined to the 

limits of disturbance. Other study area may include off-site considerations such as the potential 

for indirect effects related to increased train service. As shown on Figure 3, the larger project 

study area extends outside of the area of immediate effect. 

Since the ARC and Portal Bridge projects assume the same future train service in their 

respective build scenarios, the analysis of future operational impacts will be the same in the two 

documents. Therefore, the Portal Bridge DEIS will rely on the ARC DEIS analyses as they relate 

to the effects of increased train service and ridership on local and regional traffic, train noise and 

vibration, and ambient air quality. Furthermore, the ARC DEIS has examined much of the 

growth-inducing and secondary effects due to this increase in commuter rail service and will 

provide the basis for much of the analysis in the Portal Bridge DEIS. 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 12 

TRANSPORTATION 

 The transportation analysis in the DEIS will focus on the potential beneficial and adverse effects 

on both commuter and intercity rail operations and its related effect on passenger travel. The 

analysis will consider both short-term (during construction) and long-term (during operation) 

effects on AMTRAK and NJ TRANSIT operations. The analysis will consider the long-term 

operations of NJ TRANSIT and AMTRAK including implementation of ARC’s Locally 

Preferred Alternative’s service plan. 

The transportation analysis will also consider the effects of the project alternatives, both during 

construction and operation, on the passage of marine traffic along the Hackensack River. This 

analysis will be based on historical information on marine traffic and bridge openings and will 

consider potential future changes in land use along the Hackensack River upstream of the Portal 

Bridge. 

LAND USE AND SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Land use and socioeconomic impacts consider land acquisition and displacement of business or 

individuals, land use and development, economic impacts, and community impacts. These 

considerations represent a perspective of particular importance for establishing baseline 

conditions. In the process of compiling an accurate socioeconomic profile of existing conditions 

and a justifiable projection of future conditions, an important perspective will focus on land use 

and public policy. In particular, the policies of the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission 

(NJMC), which is charged with regulating the Meadowlands District (including 8,400 acres of 

open space, waterways, and wetlands), will be discussed in the analysis. Accurate identification 

of existing land uses, other proposed projects, and a clear understanding and representation of 

current and proposed public policies in the study area will be essential information throughout 

the planning process. These data will be used in the alternatives screening to flag issues as well 

as establishing the future baseline condition against which impacts will be assessed. 

If an alternative would require the acquisition of public and/or private land, a description of the 

affected land (location area, existing use, ownership, etc.) will be provided. If the acquisition 

requires the displacement of existing businesses or individuals, characteristics and needs of these 

affected persons and businesses will be described and an inventory of replacement 

sites/dwellings will be provided. Any relocation issues will be identified as specified under the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act (42 U.S.C. 4601) 

and its applicable regulations (49 CFR Part 24). 

This task also considers both the economic benefits of the project, in terms of supporting 

economic growth through the more additional capacity and efficiency improvements provided 

for by the enhancement of the Hackensack River crossing. The analysis will be performed in 

conjunction with the land use, neighborhood character, and social conditions analyses, above, 

and will be performed for the same study areas. 

AIR QUALITY 

By improving commuter and intercity rail service, the proposed project would contribute to a 

decrease in automobile travel in the area and lead to regional air quality benefits. Localized air 

quality, however, may be impacted from construction and/or operation of the new bridge. 

Operation of the new bridge may lead to local air quality impacts in areas of increased vehicular 

activity. This increased activity would be related to increases in rail ridership attributable to the 
SECAUCUS

STATION

TO

NEW YORK CITY

PASSAIC RIVER

KEARNY AVE.

FORMER BOONTON LINE

I-280

I-280

NEWARK

PENN

STATION

SECAUCUS

STATION

PORTAL

BRIDGE

SWIFT INTERLOCKING

NORTHEAST

CORRIDOR

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR

MORRIS & ESSEX LINES

ROUTE 1 & 9

PULASKI SKYWAY

NEWARK TPKE.

STATE ROUTE 7

BELLEVILLE TPKE.

RAYMOND

BLVD.

I-95 / NJ TURNPIKE

PASSAIC RIVER

HACKENSACK

RIVER

Jersey City

Secaucus

North Arlington Lyndhurst

Newark

Harrison

Kearny

East

Newark

TO

HOBOKEN

TO

NEW YORK CITY

I-95 / NJ TURNPIKE

I-95 / NJ TURNPIKE

MAIN/BERGEN AND

PASCACK VALLEY LINES

Project Study Area

Figure 3

12.11.06

N

SCALE

0 2000 4000 FEET

PORTAL BRIDGE CAPACITY

ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

N J T R A N S I T

Rail Line

Municipal Boundary

Train Station
 Scoping Document 

 13 

proposed project and may correspond to increased use of existing parking facilities. The analysis 

will first apply screening methods to determine whether any detailed intersection modeling 

analysis is necessary. 

No direct air quality impacts would be expected from the Portal Bridge project, other than those 

from physical construction of the bridge (discussed under “Construction,” below). It is assumed 

that the Portal Bridge project would not result in any increased activity of diesel train operations 

and therefore no analysis of diesel locomotives would be necessary. 

The air quality analysis will include the following tasks: 

• A description of existing ambient air quality levels for the study area. A summary of 

applicable regulations, such as the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s 

(NJDEP) Bureau of Air Quality Management and the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) will be included, along with a statement regarding the attainment status 

for each criteria pollutant. 

• A regional (“mesoscale”) air quality analysis will be conducted for each alternative and 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Annual regional air pollutant emissions of carbon 

monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), particulate matter (PM), and nitrogen 

oxides (NOx), will be calculated for the proposed project based on the expected change in 

vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

• A screening analysis will be conducted for microscale CO. If necessary, a detailed CO 

intersection analysis will be conducted using USEPA’s standard analysis modeling 

techniques (the CAL3QHC microscale intersection model and the MOBILE6.2 mobile 

source emission model). 

• A Transportation Conformity analysis, based on the USEPA’s recent Final Rule, will be 

conducted for the project alternatives to determine their consistency with the State 

Implementation Plans (SIP) as required by the Clean Air Act amendments. 

NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Intercity, transit and commuter rail projects have the potential for noise and vibration impacts 

along the right-of-way from new or increased service. Since noise and vibration levels drop 

dramatically with distance, the focus is typically along those segments of the right-of-way near 

sensitive receptors. FTA and FRA guidance, which take into account factors such as track 

characteristics, structure type, train speed, and distance to nearest sensitive receptor, will be used 

for noise and vibration analysis. 

The noise and vibration analysis will include the following tasks: 

• A summary of applicable noise and vibration regulations, terminology, standards, and 

evaluation criteria. 

• A description of ambient noise and vibration conditions within the project study area, based 

on the ARC project. 

• Using the May 2006 FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment and the October 

2005 FRA High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

documents, and data from ARC DEIS, an assessment of potential noise and vibration 

impacts will be presented. 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 14 

ECOLOGY 

The Portal Bridge is surrounded by mapped wetland and open water habitats that are part of 

New Jersey’s Meadowlands District. Implementation of any proposed alternative for the Portal 

Bridge project will likely result in impacts to these areas, and impacts to other natural resources 

occurring in the vicinity of the bridge. Wetlands in the Meadowlands are regulated by the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE); however, projects involving wetland impacts in the 

Meadowlands District also are reviewed by NJMC. Furthermore, the NJDEP reviews 

applications for activities in the Meadowlands District that require Waterfront Development 

Permits, Water Quality Certificates, and Coastal Zone Management Consistency 

Determinations, all of which will likely be necessary as part of the proposed Portal Bridge 

project. 

As part of the ecology analysis, baseline conditions of surface waters, wetlands, floodplains, 

vegetation, and wildlife will be documented through field efforts, compilation of historical 

documentation and data collected in the area, and coordination/correspondence with applicable 

natural resource and regulatory agencies. Surface water quality data and other surface water 

resource information for the proposed project area and surrounding vicinity will be obtained 

from the NJDEP, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and other agencies as appropriate. Available 

studies previously conducted by NJ TRANSIT, AMTRAK, and/or NJMC will be reviewed. 

Potential impacts associated with implementation of the selected or other alternatives will be 

assessed. 

The wetland habitats will be characterized based on secondary sources of information including 

existing data, documentation, mapping, and reports available from USACOE, Natural Resource 

Conservation Service, and NJMC. These secondary sources also shall serve as the basis for the 

impact assessments that will be performed for the proposed alternatives. A conceptual listing of 

potentially applicable federal, state, and local permits and approvals in addition to a discussion 

on the permitting and regulatory implications of the proposed alternatives also will be presented. 

Floodplain areas present near the Portal Bridge will be identified and mapped based on Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapping, NJDEP flood studies, and any other 

applicable resources. Both 100-year and 50-year floodplain boundaries will be presented on 

maps. Potential encroachment and resulting impacts to floodplain areas will be identified and 

assessed. The NJDEP Natural Heritage Program (NHP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be contacted to confirm the 

presence or absence of threatened or endangered species, or other sensitive species that occur in 

the project’s vicinity and potentially be affected by the proposed activities. Secondary source 

information and data will be obtained to confirm abundance and distribution of other fish and 

wildlife species known to occur in the project vicinity. A list of fish, wildlife, and plant species 

known to occur onsite and common fish and wildlife species occurring in the region will be 

compiled. Wildlife species will be categorized at the community level and mapped accordingly. 

Potential impacts to fish and wildlife will be assessed. 

CONTAMINATED MATERIALS 

Soil and groundwater beneath a site can become contaminated because of past or present uses on 

that site, or because of past or present uses on adjacent properties. Contaminated materials can 

include both hazardous and non-hazardous soil and groundwater. Proper classification of 

contaminated materials as hazardous or non-hazardous is critical, as hazardous materials are 

highly regulated substances that are defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
 Scoping Document 

 15 

(RCRA). Site that are currently or have historically been used for rail-related purposes may 

contain certain categories of contamination. Contaminants commonly found along rail lines 

include volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, and herbicides. 

Pesticides and herbicides are used to control vectors and vegetation in rail yards and along rail 

lines. Creosote, a coal-derived product, was historically used in the manufacturing of rail ties 

and can result in semi-volatile organic compound contamination. Fuel storage may result in 

petroleum contamination and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are commonly used as a 

dielectric fluid in train-mounted or yard transformers. Urban areas are often underlain by historic 

fill material, which may contain contaminants of concern. Above ground structures, such as 

bridges, typically require an assessment of asbestos-containing material and lead-based paint. 

The assessment of contaminated materials will include a Phase I environmental site assessment 

for those locations where activities could disturb contaminated materials. The Phase I 

assessments will include a four-tiered investigation: (1) past and current land use review, 

including a review of historic aerial photographs and Sanborn maps; (2) contaminated database 

and records research; (3) review of previous site investigations; and (4) site inspection. 

Photographs will be taken during the site inspection to document current conditions and items of 

note. The review of regulatory files will include a review of relevant NJDEP and USEPA files. 

VISUAL RESOURCES/AESTHETICS 

The proposed project could result in a new elevated structure over the Hackensack River. The 

effect of this new structure on the surrounding visual environment, and whether it may affect or 

block views to existing visual resources, will be evaluated. A visual resource analysis will be 

conducted pursuant to the guidelines of the USDOT for visual analysis under NEPA. The 

existing environment of each visible project element and its surrounding study area will be 

described. Existing visual resources and important view corridors or viewsheds will also be 

identified, and existing views toward any potentially visible project element from surrounding 

neighborhoods will be discussed. Existing resources and corridors will be classified as 

distinctive, common, or minimal. Topography, vegetation, and existing buildings and structures 

will be taken into consideration, and viewer groups and duration of views will be identified. 

Using all this information, the proposed project alternatives will be assessed. If the potential for 

temporary visual impacts during construction exists, it will be discussed in the construction 

impacts assessment. 

HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires that federal agencies 

consider the effects of their actions on any properties listed on or determined eligible for listing 

on the National Register. As part of the Section 106 process, the federal agency would afford the 

State's Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

interested members of the public a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking and 

its potential effect. The following steps will be taken pursuant to Section 106 regulations to 

identify and assess potential project effects on historic properties. 

The first step will be to identify the area of potential effect (APE) for historic and archaeological 

resources. This is the area where potential project effects could occur. APEs would be developed 

in consultation with NJSHPO. Within the APE historic resources would be identified. These 

include the AMTRAK Portal Bridge at Milepost 6.1 (formerly known as the Pennsylvania, New 

Jersey and New York Railroad Company Portal Bridge) on the project site. Construction of the 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 16 

bridge began in 1907 as part of the eight-mile direct rail line to Midtown Manhattan, and it is 

listed on the New Jersey State Register of Historic Places (SR). Other historic resources in the 

APE will be identified, including properties listed on the State and National Registers of Historic 

Places (S/NR) or determined eligible for such listing, National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) and 

properties determined eligible for such listing, and architectural resources that may be locally 

designated or eligible for designation. Additionally, a survey would be conducted to identify any 

previously undesignated properties in the APE that appear to meet eligibility criteria for listing 

in the S/NR, designation as NHLs, and local designation. Potential architectural resources would 

be identified based on site visits and through the use of historical sources including local 

repositories, texts, images, and maps. If such properties are identified, documentation would be 

provided to NJSHPO to allow for determinations of NR eligibility to be made. To evaluate 

archaeological resources, a Phase 1A documentary study will be prepared for the archaeological 

resources APE to determine whether areas that would be impacted by the proposed project may 

contain archaeological resources. This study would include cartographic research, review of 

contextual histories, identification of documented archaeological sites on or in the vicinity of the 

project site, and the potential for the APE to contain any previously unidentified archaeological 

resources. This study would be provided to NJSHPO for their review and acceptance. 

Once the historic and archaeological resources have been identified, the potential effects of the 

proposed project on these properties will be assessed, including direct physical effects (e.g., 

demolition, alteration, or damage from construction of a historic standing structure or 

disturbance of an archaeologically sensitive area) and indirect, contextual effects, such as the 

isolation of a property from its surrounding environment, or the introduction of visual, audible, 

or atmospheric elements that would be out of character with the property or alter its setting. 

Should any adverse effects be identified, such as if the Portal Bridge is to be demolished, 

avoidance and mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with the lead federal 

agency and NJSHPO. These measures would be set forth in a Programmatic Agreement or 

Memorandum of Agreement, which would be executed by the FRA, the NJSHPO, potential 

consulting parties, and possibly the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

The environmental justice analysis will comply with the requirements of Executive Order 12898, 

“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations” and assess the project’s potential for disproportionately high and adverse 

environmental impacts on minority and/or low-income populations. In addition to the Executive 

Order, the analysis will follow the guidance in the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

“Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act” (December 

1997, the USDOT’s “Final Order on Environmental Justice” (April 1997), and any relevant 

guidance from the State of New Jersey. Demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau will be 

used to determine whether minority and/or low-income populations are located within the study 

area. Creating an effective public participation program to assume communities meaningful 

representation in the planning process is also required under the Executive Order. The potential 

environmental impacts from construction and operation of the bridge will be considered. If 

needed, mitigation measures will be proposed to address disproportionate impacts. 

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 

The construction assessment will include an evaluation of the construction means and methods 

proposed, disruption to existing rail service, disruption of utilities, dust control measures, safety 
 Scoping Document 

 17 

and security, traffic routes and disposal of contaminated materials. The mode of material 

delivery and disposal is also considered in a construction impact analysis. The potential for 

adverse environmental impacts (such as stormwater runoff, air quality, traffic and transportation, 

and noise impacts) to nearby sensitive receptors will be assessed. The project site appears to be a 

substantial distance from the nearest residents and businesses; however, impacts to adjacent 

wetland areas and wildlife will be evaluated in the construction assessment. An important factor 

for this chapter will be the potential effects of constructing the project alternatives on existing 

marine and rail traffic. 

SECONDARY AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 

The federal Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations implementing the procedural 

provisions of NEPA, set forth in 40 CFR Part 1500-1508, requires federal agencies to consider 

the environmental consequences of their actions, including not only direct , but also indirect and 

cumulative effects. The approach to the assessment of capacity enhancements for the Portal 

Bridge project will focus on its potential cumulative effects with the improvements planned for 

the ARC project. Much of the analysis of the cumulative and secondary effects as it relates to 

additional train service for NJ TRANSIT commuters will rely on the analysis in the ARC DEIS. 

These issues would include the growth-inducing effects of the improved service and the related 

environmental effects (e.g. traffic, air quality and noise) consequences of the increased 

passenger demand. The potential long-term effects on socioeconomics, traffic, air quality, and 

noise that would result from increased train service and passenger activity at various station 

locations upon completion of both projects would be considered. 

The cumulative effects chapter will describe the potential cumulative effects for each of the 

environmental subject areas. However, greater detail will be provided for resources that may be 

affected by increased capacity for NJ TRANSIT and AMTRAK. Specifically, the secondary and 

cumulative effects chapter will address: 

• Potential changes in socioeconomic trends related to increased service for AMTRAK and NJ 

TRANSIT; 

• Impacts on traffic, transit, and pedestrian circulation near AMTRAK and NJ TRANSIT 

stations (including New York’s Penn Station); 

• Decreases in mesoscale air emissions from reductions in VMT; and 

• Effects on sensitive receptors outside the Portal Bridge alignment from increases in train 

pass-bys. 

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (49 USC §303) 

prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from approving any program or project that requires 

the “use” of (1) any publicly owned land in a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or (2) any land from a historic site of 

national, state, or local significance (collectively “Section 4(f) resources”), unless there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and the project includes all possible 

planning to minimize harm to the resource. 

With respect to the term “use” there are three possible ways in which a project could involve a 

“use” of a resource: 
Portal Bridge Capacity Enhancement Project 

 18 

• When land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 

• When there is a temporary occupancy of land that is adverse in terms of the statute’s 

preservation purpose; or, 

• When there is a constructive use of land. 

Constructive use occurs when the project does not directly incorporate land from a Section 4(f) 

resource, but the project’s impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or 

attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. 

Substantial impairment occurs only when the protected activities, features, or attributes of the 

resource are substantially diminished. 

The Section 4(f) evaluation for the Portal Bridge project will consider the project’s potential use 

of historic resources, archaeological resources, and, potentially, parklands and wildlife or 

waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local importance. For each of these resources, the Section 

4(f) evaluation will describe the resource; will character the project’s potential use of the 

resource; will evaluate alternatives to the use of the resource; and will describe efforts to 

minimize harm. 

F. PUBLIC OUTREACH 

NEPA, along with Executive Order 12898 require federal agencies to work to ensure greater 

public participation in the decision-making process. The success of any project lies in its ability 

to be implemented and implementation is dependant upon public acceptance. The public 

provides unique insight into local conditions that can add value to technical aspects of the 

project. A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) has been developed to encourage participation from 

both members of the general public, along with involved and interested public agencies. 

The goals of the Public Involvement Plan are as follows: 

• To provide an opportunity and a mechanism for a diverse group of public participants to 

engage in the development of the EIS and give relevant input to the project 

• To focus public input in a structured manner that will allow decisions to be made with the 

maximum benefit from public involvement, and to ensure that public input influences 

recommendations and decisions. 

• To ensure that elected officials, agencies, stakeholders, and the general public are adequately 

informed about the project and its implications for their communities, and to identify 

potential issues so that they can be addressed and resolved before the completion of the EIS 

process. 

• To solicit community feedback for the scoping document on the scope of alternatives, 

environmental and community issues to be covered, and the methods for their evaluation, 

followed later by comments on the Draft EIS as to impacts on specific areas. 

• To convey NJ TRANSIT’s, AMTRAK’s, and the study team’s commitment to public 

involvement and become the primary sources of project information. 

• To build a consensus on a preferred alternative by balancing points of view among 

regional/local interests and environmental/commercial concerns and define and build 

support for the preferred alternative. 

The goals of the Project Involvement Plan will be accomplished through the following strategies 

and techniques: 
 Scoping Document 

 19 

• Identifying key groups and interest in the outreach area. 

- This strategy will be implemented through the creation of a Regional Citizens Liaison 

Committee that will provide an opportunity for community members to have an input 

throughout the EIS process. Additional techniques include the creation of a project 

mailing list to inform interested parties on the project’s process, as well as to encourage 

local participation in the study. 

• Coordinating with involved and interested agencies. 

- This strategy involves the development of a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), 

which provides a forum for open communication between the project team and 

representatives of state, local and federal agencies. Involved and interested agencies will 

also be encouraged to participate in the project by holding an agency scoping meeting 

which will allow TAC agencies to provide input on issues such as the purpose and need 

of the project, potential alternatives for consideration, issues to be addressed in the 

environmental assessment, among other issues. 

• Enabling face-to-face dialogue with the study team. 

- This will be accomplished by holding various meetings and other opportunities for the 

public and involved agencies to interact with the project team. 

• Utilizing a variety of communication tools. 

- A variety of communication tools will used to encourage public and agency 

involvement, including newsletters, meeting announcements, press releases, a website 

and meeting materials. 

• Documenting agency, stakeholder, and public input. 

- Input from various stakeholders will be documented through transcripts, written 

comment sheets, and logging correspondence. 

A public scoping meeting will be held on January 17, 2007 where the public will be given the 

opportunity to comment on this document. The meeting will have an afternoon and evening 

session. Each session will be preceded by a brief presentation of the project. The public will 

have an opportunity to view information materials and make oral comments. The meeting date, 

location, and time are as follows: 

January 17, 2007 – 4:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. 

The Newark Public Library 

Centennial Hall, 2nd Floor 

5 Washington St, 

Newark, NJ 07101-0630 

973-733-7800 

Ï